Legal Research
Cases
Hepburn v McDonnell

Hepburn v McDonnell

Case [1918] HCA 43 19 August 1918

Appeal

Contract Law

Equity & Trusts

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

25 CLR 199

McDONNELL

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Limitation of Action-Action for debt--Acknowledgment in writing-Implied promise

to pay-Contradiction of implied promise-Statute of Limitations 1623 (21 Jac. I. c. 16), sec. 3-Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (9 Geo. I v. c. 14),

The plaintiff, by his solicitor, wrote to the defendant a letter stating that the defendant owed the plaintiff a specified sum of money, that the defendant had made no attempt to reduce her indebtedness, that the plaintiff required payment of the money and interest, and that any reasonable proposal put forward by the defendant would be considered. In reply the defendant wrote to the plaintiff - was indeed more than surprised to receive a letter through your solicitor re my indebtedness to you. Well in the first place

I always knew, and had intended to pay you a certain sum, which I knew Iwas

I am offering you £26 per year until the War is over and when my daughter is of age we can sell some land which I shall advise them to give you a portion.

At any rate this is the best offer I can offer at present-what the future brings forth rests in God's hand. you will see your way clear to answer this at once, and trust my word to do what I say I will." In an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant

25 CLR 200

to recover a sum including the sum specified in his letter to the defendant. the defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and the plaintiff relied On the defendant's letter as being an acknowledgment in writing of the debt sued

Held, that the defendant's letter contained an unconditional acknowledg- ment of the debt to the extent of the sum specified in the plaintiff's letter, that there was nothing in the defendant's letter to contradict the implied promise to pay arising from that acknowledgment, and therefore that there was a sufficient acknowledgment within Lord Tenterden's Act (9 Geo. IV. e. 14) of the plaintiff's claim to the extent of the specified sum.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Street J.): Hepburn T. McDonnell, 17 S.R. (N.S.W.), 567, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

A suit in the Supreme Court in Equity was brought by Charles Graham Hepburn against Grace McDonnell in which, by the state- ment of claim, it was alleged that the plaintiff, the defendant and Henry Gregory Quinlan were the executors and executrix and the trustees of the will of William McDonald, deceased, to whom probate was granted on 29th July 1914; that by a decree of the Supreme Court made on 14th December 1908 it was declared that there had been wrongly paid out of the capital of the estate of the testator by the trustees the sum of £1.626 6s. 8d., and that the trustees were indebted to the estate in that sum that of that sum…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hepburn v McDonnell

Details

AGLC: Hepburn v McDonnell [1918] HCA 43
Case: [1918] HCA 43
Decision Date: 19 August 1918

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Hepburn v McDonnell* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Mr Hepburn, sought to recover a sum of money from the respondent, Ms McDonnell, representing her contribution to a debt owed to the estate of her late father, of which they were both executors. Ms McDonnell raised the defence of the Statute of Limitations, arguing that the claim was brought more than six years after the cause of action arose. Mr Hepburn contended that Ms McDonnell's written response to a letter from his solicitor constituted a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt to take it out of the statute.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Ms McDonnell's letter of 20 November 1916 contained an acknowledgment of the debt that was sufficient to defeat the defence of the Statute of Limitations. Specifically, the court had to determine if the letter contained an unqualified acknowledgment of the debt, from which a promise to pay could be implied, and whether any subsequent statements in the letter contradicted or qualified this implied promise.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that Ms McDonnell's letter contained an unconditional acknowledgment of her indebtedness to Mr Hepburn, to the extent of the sum specified in the solicitor's letter. The court applied the principles established in cases such as *Green v Humphreys* and *Cooper v Kendall*, which require an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment from which an intention to pay can be inferred. While Ms McDonnell's letter did propose a method of payment and explained her current financial difficulties, the court found that these statements did not contradict the initial acknowledgment of the debt. Instead, they were viewed as an explanation of her present inability to pay and an offer for consideration, rather than a repudiation of her liability. Therefore, the court held that there was a sufficient acknowledgment within Lord Tenterden's Act to take the claim for the specified sum out of the Statute of Limitations.

Orders